Wind Farm: Workers prepare to climb a 260-foot windmill tower to repair a turbine in Judith Gap, Mont. Invenergy’s 90 turbines here fulfill 7 percent of Montana’s electricity needs. (Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff)
Montana’s got wind, needs power lines
But environmentalists worry that an expanded grid will help carry more dirty power.
By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer/ December 29, 2008 edition
Watch Video
Reporter Ben Arnoldy and staff photographer Melanie Stetson Freeman take a close look at a Montana wind turbine farm.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer talks about getting away from dependence on oil and finding ways to store alternative energy.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer
Helena, Mont.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer envisions a day when New Yorkers will be driving cars powered by the wind that howls across the Montana prairie. The Democrat recently called on the federal government to spend $15 billion to build a next-generation transmission grid to link such far-flung regions.
“You start delivering wind to cars and the [oil-nation] dictators, they get sad fast,” says Mr. Schweitzer in his Helena office-cum-classroom, where he keeps vials of biofuel feed stock and model windmills to show visitors. He has a lump of coal, too – a reminder that Montana not only has lots of wind to harness, but tons of coal to shovel.
The interior West’s abundance of both green-energy resources and traditional fossil fuels make some watchdogs nervous about a rush to build what has been called an Interstate highway system for electrons. The idea of expanding transmission lines is commonly pitched by politicians as a way to put people to work while removing a crucial obstacle to renewable power.
But it’s not going to be just wind and sun on those wires. “[S]ome proponents of expanding coal-fired electricity production are using windfarms as a rationalization for greatly expanding transmission lines through the region.
They talk a lot about wind power, but their real interest is vastly expanded use of coal in generating electricity,” says Larry Swanson, a regional economist at the O’Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana in Missoula.
Schweitzer does not deny that federally funded transmission lines would also help his state’s coal industry. He says he is a strong advocate not just for renewables but for so-called clean coal technologies.
“We’re going to hook some coal into it,” he says. “Fifty percent of the electricity in America comes from coal. I’m all for change, but unless you are willing to live naked in a tree and eat nuts for the next 30 years, coal’s going to be part of the portfolio.”
Environmental groups have made transmission a priority: Al Gore’s “We Campaign,” for example, is calling for a Unified National Smart Grid, which the group sees as part of a 10-year plan to get the nation using “100 percent clean electricity.”
But they still have some reservations.
“[T]he whole environment community remains concerned about transmission because there is no clear idea of what’s going to be on it,” says Rachel Shimshak, head of the Renewable Northwest Project, a regional advocacy group for renewable energy. “There is nervousness with Montana.”
Nevertheless, her group has been collaborating with power generators, utilities, and regulators on decisions about how and where to upgrade the grid.
Harnessing the prairie wind
In the center of Montana, tucked on rolling prairie land, the population of Judith Gap barely outnumbers the 90 wind turbines cranking out power there. The wind comes roaring from the Crazy Mountains and the Little Belt Range, smooths out as it passes over the grassland, and provides enough force to generate 7 percent of the regional utility’s needs.
Invenergy, the company that owns the Judith Gap wind farm, plans to build more turbines here and in other parts of the state. Other companies are scouting around, too.
The man who chose Judith Gap as the place to plant Montana’s first wind farm warns that transmission is becoming a real limitation.
“There still is quite a lot of wind where there are transmission lines, but most of those transmission lines are full,” says Bob Quinn, an organic farmer who took up harvesting wind with the help of a cousin. “We could light Los Angeles if we had the power lines.”
Plans for new transmission lines are cropping up across the West. Such projects tend to be initiated by a utility, then coordinated through regional planning groups and potentially expanded to include multiple utilities.
In recent years, the private sector has also started building and running transmission lines. This spring, construction will start on the Montana Alberta Tie Line that connects the Canadian and US grids from Great Falls, Mont.
“All of our capacity has been awarded to companies that plan to develop new wind farms in north central Montana,” says Bob Williams, the vice president of regulatory affairs for the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd (MATL), the company building the line.
There’s already skepticism, however, about whether this line will be entirely green. If the wind farms don’t get up and running, short-term power contracts have been signed with six global energy shippers to lease the space, according to a 2007 report in the Missoula Independent newspaper.
Mr. Williams denies that any such short-term contracts have been signed. But “certain potential customers have registered with MATL and they may or may not be awarded short-term capacity in the future,” he says. It depends on whether the wind-power companies want to offer any of their unused capacity back to the market, he says.
An environmental trade off?
“That line is in fact going to carry dirty power,” says Ken Toole, Montana’s Public Service Commissioner. The economics of a power line mean that it has to be full all the time, he explains. And that’s a huge challenge moving forward with just wind and solar power, since their output varies over the course of a day and a season.
“I’ve talked with [MATL] about the concept of ‘greenwashing’ these projects. Talking about them as facilitating wind, giving the public the impression that they are all about clean, renewable power – that’s a little misleading,” says Mr. Toole.
One of the obvious ways to get more green electrons flowing on any new transmission wires is to put pressure on the buyers of the power, says Ms. Shimshak with the Renewable Northwest Project. Many states like California already have emission performance standards that prevent utilities from purchasing power that spews too much carbon.
The federal government could also take away some of the economic imperatives for maximizing the load on the line. Traditionally, transmission lines are built to the size they are needed in the near term. The current discussion of federal dollars is not about financing the entire cost of new lines, but about funding the supersizing of them for future growth, says Doug Larson, executive director of the Western Interstate Energy Board.
“It’s clear if you don’t build the wires, you’ll never tap the wind. From an environmental perspective, there’s this trade off – you could oppose this transmission, but you are cutting off renewables,” says Mr. Larson.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Chuck Linderman | 12.29.08
This story could substitute North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming for Montana and the thrust would be the same: that more transmission is needed to take wind generated electricity from remote parts of the Great Plains to markets on either coast. The same principle applies to solar power produced from concentrating solar power stations in the Desert Southwest.
3. James Jones | 12.29.08
Why sweat this project based on trust? Given the history of centrally funded resources, building accountability into the process is a sounder strategy. Eliminate the need for trust from society wide resources such as this and get on with it, we WILL need the infrastructure, build it with the capacity to expand, and regulate coal generation emissions in the same bill, review it every 3 to 5 years - quit expecting today’s solution to be tomorrows perfection. And while were at it lets review all legislation on a 20 year cycle and either re-ratify laws that serve the public interest or eliminate ones that don’t. Got to keep those legislators occupied - so they have less time to be “creative”, and spend more time simplifying and streamlining the process of government.
4. Robert Hook | 12.29.08
The other cost of new transmission lines is the ugliness they create as they cross open spaces. So it is all well and good to talk about clean energy with wind power, but the turbines themselves also create blight in open areas. The better solution is to limit the need for power by conservation and restricting immigration. If the USA allows its population to reach 400 million in 30 years, it will mean many more coal burning plants and transmission lines.
5. Arthur LEMAY | 12.30.08
The problems of renewable power produces issues like these. The power is low quality, variable with wind or solar radiance and clouds, and since the power grid has no storage, it must be backed up with traditional power. So, using the power grid for coal-generated power is not only inevitable it is necessary.
But, there is one inescapable problem: The amount of power generated is too small to be practical. It takes thousands of wind turbines to equal the power production of one large coal fired plant. And, now, it is becoming clearer that there is just not enough suitable real-estate near cities to make a difference. So, this is why these power grids are proposed. But, some critics have estimated that the entire western states would need to be paved over with windmills to provide enough power.
And, of course the bogeyman is that CO2 concentrations increase global warming. Strange isn’t it that the concentration of CO2 has increased since 1998, but the climate is cooling. Perhaps the sun controls the climate and even if we eliminate 100% of all man-produced CO2 it won’t matter at all. Most climate scientists believe this, but politicians are so eager to tax us for energy use they won’t listen.
6. jon thogmartin | 12.30.08
coal needs to be part of the solution but on a decreasing percentage of total energy output. we cannot keep ignoring the tremendous costs of coal- our air, our water, our health, our forests-the flora and fauna. the coal industry has to be held accountable for the pollution it creates, the deaths it contributes to. the statistics are clear. coal is dirty from mining to transporting, to burning, to acid rain, to waste fly ash.
to make coal on an equal footing with clean fuels-such as:solar,wind, hydro,wave,nuclear & bio-fuels makes coal a whole lot more expensive and much less desirable. our efforts must be to do less damage to our “nest” now & in the future. if you are not making things better by your actions, there will be no future.
transmission, and generation must be integrated solutions captalizing on what we have but reaching to a clean, healthy future for our grandchildren. no wastelands please.
7. bill hunter | 01.01.09
“But environmentalists worry that an expanded grid will help carry more dirty power.”
Let’s just do away with these nuts!
We can feed themto the plar bears….since the polar bear populations is EXPANDING, not declining….they need food.!
8. Valkyrie | 01.03.09
It really is about over population an issue that seems to have been forgotten. Put money back into population control and free distribution of birth control and you will have made significant inroads into energy consumption. We are a virus overburdening the host, our planet.
9. Cindy | 01.05.09
American citizens have attained the incredible achievement of zero population growth. All current population growth comes from immigrants and their babies.
10. Dave | 01.13.09
In nature, creatures live only in places where their needs can be met by the local environment. Might be a lesson to learn there…
11. Campbell | 03.14.09
The companies involved in installing and maintaining wind farms across Montana and Wyoming are being heavily subsidized. These wind farms are and will continue to destroy the natural beauty and wildlife of both states so some billionaire can get richer. They are not green but archaic in their method of generating power and will be a burden for future generations and promote a loss of tourism in the state. Any and every fly by night company is getting in on the act without thinking about the future consequences of their actions. Profit first, think later. We have many natural resources and technologies that are capable of providing reliable, safe and clean power for countless generations. Wind power is not one of them. We should allow for an energy policy that reduces our dependency on utilities to promote personal responsibility for our everyday needs. The promotion and use of residential geothermal and photovoltaic systems along with energy efficient home designs would go a long way in promoting independence and energy security. But instead we are wasting billions of dollars on a system that will end up losing money for each KW generated while at the same time destroying the natural beauty of America.
12. Campbell | 03.15.09
The companies involved in installing and maintaining wind farms across Montana and Wyoming are being heavily subsidized. These wind farms are and will continue to destroy the natural beauty and wildlife of both states so some billionaire can get richer. They are not green but archaic in their method of generating power and will be a burden for future generations and promote a loss of tourism in the states. Any and every fly by night company is getting in on the act without thinking about the future consequences of their actions. Profit first, think later. We have many natural resources and technologies that are capable of providing reliable, safe and clean power for countless generations. Wind power is not one of them. We should allow for an energy policy that reduces our dependency on utilities to promote personal responsibility for our everyday needs. The promotion and use of residential geothermal and photovoltaic systems along with energy efficient home designs would go a long way in promoting independence and energy security. But instead we are wasting billions of dollars on a system that will end up losing money for each KW generated while at the same time destroying the natural beauty of America.
13. ron wagstaff | 06.25.09
How are they going to control the wind generators once the wind stops blowing?? All wind producing generators has to have a spinning reserve on line to replace or maintain the Freq of the system once the reduction in output of the wind generator. Visit your local power company control center to just see what it will take to control the wind!!!!
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. ‘Unless you are willing to live naked in a tree and eat nuts for the next 30 years, coal’s going to be part of the portfolio’ | ForceChange | 12.29.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Jerry McIntire | 12.29.08
You’ve got to place some trust somewhere, and the Renewable Northwest Project, along with its midwest cousin, Wind on the Wires, deserve that trust with their dedication to expanding renewable energy production as quickly as possible. Without greatly expanding the limited transmission capacity in Montana and the Dakotas, this region, the giant of American wind resources, will not be able to share its wealth of renewable power with the rest of the country. Those of us with genuine concerns about the environment will do well to be vigilant, but not obstructionists.